RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1

[Evan Lenz <elenz@xyzfind.com>]

Len Bullard wrote:
> But I am concerned that getting rid of the extension element altogether
> tosses
> the baby out with the bathwater.  This issue of extensibility and
> component
> support is bedeviling a lot of web app languages these days.  An almost
> one for one duplicate of this is raging on the VRML list.  On one side,
> some want no extensions.  On the other some demand extensions.  On one
> side, XML means are being argued for.  On the other, exclusive VRML
> means (Protos and scripts) are argued for.   All I can conclude from
> this is that scripts are the preferred means of extending a language
> where one can't wait for a new version from the politburo.  Given that,
> I don't see how you can ask them to remove it.

There already are extension function/element mechanisms in XSLT 1.0, so this
would not be "tossing the baby out with the bathwater." The converse of
adding no new functionality is taking no new functionality away. I think
that having an extension mechanism is good and important, especially and/or
at least during XSLT's infancy (now), so that people can implement new
functionality that is not part of the spec. Note that a number of XSLT 1.1's
additions, including multiple output documents and implicit RTF-node-set
conversion, were already implemented by most XSLT processors as XSLT 1.0
extensions. This is an example of this aspect of the extension model really
working. Users found the need, implementors provided an extension, and the
W3C responded by making it standard, eliminating the need for an extension
for those particular features.

> You can ask for them to label it as a wart but they won't do that.

Given that there is no new functionality in xsl:script, it's not about
asking them to label a wart. Instead, it's about asking them not to shine
and beautify an existing (and necessary) wart and thus making it no longer
appear to be a wart. Please don't disguise the wart.

Evan